Analysis Breaking comment

Starmlin’s next proscription will be Stop the War, not (yet) Momentum

‘Uncle Keith’

This is a Skwawkbox edit of a guest post submitted by a Labour figure who asked to remain anonymous.

Asked by journalists last week whether he would proscribe – outlaw – Momentum, Keir Starmer responded equivocally:

That one is not for me.

Of course, that is neither a denial nor an indicator that it’s not an option – rather, the matter is on someone else’s to-do list. Indeed it’s been pushed for by right wingers for some time, although anyone who believes that such a decision wouldn’t have Starmer’s stamp on it might find a queue outside their door of people offering to sell them a bridge.

Why do the right want rid of Momentum? Because it supports Jeremy Corbyn or merely, in these days of guilt by the vaguest association being the norm, because their name starts with ‘M’ as Militant‘s did? And of course the added incentive that spurs these ‘purists’ on – we must all after all be, and if we’re not we must aspire to be, middle class – will be their relish in applying the ban retrospectively, expelling anyone who ever liked or quoted a Momentum tweet, which will be most who ever supported Corbyn.

The fact that such a ridiculous application is used in a party that, as his supporters never tire of regurgitating, is run by a so-called ‘human rights lawyer’ is bad enough, but no particular effort is needed to find examples, so much has the use of it mushroomed. Hours and hours will be spent by the right-wing faction scouring social media, meeting minutes and so on – or perhaps it will be farmed it out to shady sub-contractors who haven’t yet been busted by investigative journalists in other countries – for any vague connection whatsoever with those they want to tar as ‘other’.

The revolving door of expulsions is like an fair ground ride for the right – exhilarating but safe, because they know their media pals will always backstop for them.

But the wanton prescriptions so far haven’t provided the thousands and thousands of expulsions the right craved and publicly promised – simply because not many were signed-up members of those proscribed groups and those who had signed up were often not members of the Labour party anyway. And, as seen in the past, vast quantities of complaints to Labour had to be dismissed because those complained about weren’t members in the first place.

The right doesn’t let things like natural justice or legal principle stop them, so they’re not going to lose much sleep over wasted hours and the wasted resources of the Labour party when the payback is the opportunity for unkind and unfair treatment of others, justified in what passes for the right’s minds by an incontestable belief in their own righteousness – or by a sheer lack of interest in whether what they’re doing is right or fair in the first place.

That belief that is not open to debate, evidence or consideration of others. It simply is. In their own minds, anything they think is right and justified and nothing to the contrary is allowed to intrude – and they’ll skip happily on to the next method of industrialised expulsion – but Momentum is not their most immediate target, because if there’s anything the right like better than cosying up to corporates and imperial powers, it’s joining them in a nice war.

And it’s now well known in Labour’s top circles that the next proscription on the list is not momentum. It’s Stop the War (StW). Proscribing StW will deliver up Corbyn along with anyone who supported him, or even the last general election manifesto, that the right feels like targeting.

Riding on the back of the Ukraine-Russia war and the shameless propaganda of what used to be the UK media, Starmer’s ‘Labour’ is already poised. Already no dissent is allowed, with Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper chiming in last week to climb up Starmer’s nether passage to say that there is no room in the party for anyone who will not accept the ‘new’ realities.

Ironic, given the right’s non-stop bleating that they were not being tolerated when the left was (however notionally) in charge.

Of course, most people not being keen to face nuclear annihilation, much of the public fears the escalation of war and the possibility of nuclear engagement – and would much prefer peace to the mass civilian casualties war will bring. But speaking on behalf of those rational millions is not allowed. Not now – nor even a whisper of the thought that negotiations must take place at some point (and indeed, short of the utter obliteration of the ‘enemy’, no war ever ended without it).

Last week was the anniversary of the STW march when two million stood up and shouted ‘No!’ to war in the Gulf – an event where speaker after speaker rightly predicted the turmoil and continued suffering that would result. The millions were ignored then, because people who crave power act like all the other power-cravers who came before them, ready to claim that war and death can be justified.

The current situation is a perfect opportunity for the power-hungry and those who can never have enough billions in the bank – and for those who have corrupted the Labour party on their behalf. Evidence will be found against those the apparatus wants out – and if it isn’t, then any past comment can and will be twisted beyond all recognition to serve instead of evidence. Those who stand against war and its consequences – death, poverty, subservience, homelessness, statelessness, refugees and more – will be vilified as ‘Putin apologists’, as many already have been.

Those running the Labour party and its blue section on the other side of the Commons don’t care that the people of Yemen, Afghanistan, Palestine and elsewhere are still dying and suffering. That’s irrelevant to them compared to the priority of preserving the status quo and making sure power and wealth continue to be held by those with power and wealth now.

Corbyn and all that stood with him and shared a different set of principles and a desire for a better, fairer world – but to the right they are just inconveniences to be removed or crushed.

There is no scope for different opinions. Dissenting views must be silenced and the prospect of real, meaningful change ended. Misinformation and outright lies are key tools to silence that dissent and turn the people against dissenters. In the approved world view, all those who stand against war are commie subversives and McCarthy’s only fault was in not going far, fast or hard enough.

Videos and other media are circulating of protest, as they always do after the STW marches and speeches. Imagine the hours that will be spent trawling those videos, photographs and leaflets trying to identify who was there, when the Labour right yet again start retrospectively applying their new proscription.

StW’s next big demo is next weekend

The peace movement is about to be othered even more than ever before. Freedom to hold politics of peace and justice is at greater risk now in the UK than it ever has been. Stop the War looks like being the next casualty of the information war against that freedom – and with a major anti-Starmer, anti-war demo taking place in London next weekend, don’t be surprised if the purge is underway very soon.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Yes he’s a (yawn) human rights lawyer. According to the Ipsos veracity index, where people were simply asked if they trusted various professions to tell the truth, nurses came top with 93% agreeing, doctors 91%, engineers on 89% and teachers on 85%, in twelfth place came lawyers with 61% a full 10% behind the police! Second bottom on just 15% were politicians, and fourth bottom journalists on 23%, TV newsreaders …. 50%. I think we can see a pattern emerging here…. I doubt Starmer is worthy of the 15% trust of politicians “generally!” The man seems to have a problem with the truth.

    1. Joe – Yes he was a human rights barrister and his work made a significant contribution to saving the lives of 100s.

      1. Yes. And he refused to go to Qatar for the world cup…Worra guy👍😏

    2. After all, Starmer did describe “the likes of Stop the War ” in his infamous Guardian article.

  2. What is really really bad about this is not so much that it gags those
    in favour of STW – it also gags many who disagree with STW

    Thus there are many who like me, would like to argue with some
    in Stop The War – but cannot because we feel nauseous
    at being associated with the parroting of the Starmerite

  3. There is one new proscription that we urgently need:
    Membership of the Trilateral Commission.
    [The international arm of American foreign policy for control of the World Order]
    Starmer and Mandelson are both members.

    Look it up on Wikipedia.
    Read it thoroughly.
    It tells you a lot.

    Just like NATO – The military arm of American foreign policy in Europe.

    1. Mandelson?.. oh yeah, friend of that chap who was suicide. I remember.

  4. Oh, come on, there is humour in it. He says one thing, does another.

    Most on ‘the left’ can see it. They know what’s coming.

    Those on ‘the right’ bust a gut, trying to defend him.

    ‘Wot ‘e meant was… Jeremy Corbyn, something, something, something…’

  5. Most disturbing is a letter doing the rounds calling for increased defence expenditure and more weapons for Ukraine. It has been signed by no. 1 Nato shill Paul Mason and a number of right wing trades unionists, no surprise there, but also includes the signatures of some Socialist Campaign Group MPs including McDonnell, Whitome and Russell Moyle.

    1. What? McDonnell? I am not that surprise at Russell Moyle, he supported Starmer’s bid for leadership after all and Nadia Whitome is a good woman but out of her depth. I am not going to be surprised that she sign it after McDonnell did.
      But McDonnell? First he sabotaged Corbyn by doing a U turn supporting the “People’s Vote” and stopping Corbyn from tackling Margaret Hodge. Now he wants more expenditure in arming Ukraine? The man needs his head examine.

      1. Ukraine could lose according to reports, so McDonnell might be figuring he may as well try to stay in the good books of the RW cabal that’s running the party? Lousy, unprincipled ,but unlike Corbyn, he lives to fight another day.

        The SCG are fighting to survive within Starmer’s Labour. Starmer’s evil anti-democratic mob looking for one reason to justify removing the whip. What’s likely to happen, is a rash of expulsions just prior to the election, even well-known MPs, leaving them no time to mount any sort of defence.

    2. labrebisgalloise

      Hasn’t Paul Mason explained to you his support for Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman from a Marxist perspective?

  6. Starmers Labour is against “Stop the War”.
    If they don’t want to stop wars and foster worldwide peace and justice , what do they want?
    I suppose they want to be like their idol Tony Blair. They don’t realise or perhaps even care that his warmongering made him one of the most despised people in the world. Tone’s happy though- he can sit back in one of his several mansions and count his millions when he can’t sleep at night .

    1. Not sure I understand you here – Blair instigated an insane war in
      the Middle East and Putin has instigated an insane war on Ukraine ..
      both of which had implications over a larger area .. where In Blairs case
      it was Hubris .. and in Putins a land grab. The bombardment of Ukraine
      is similar to the bombardment of Chechnya in the early 2000s – which
      Corbyn criticised – at the same time as Blair and his mates were
      schmoozing with Putin, campaigning to inflict him on the UK
      and a visit with the Queen.

      Of course Sadam Hussein was a
      monster but the result was the encouragement of 1000 Husseins –
      as one of its victims sadly said. In Putins case – his insistence that
      it is a War against fascists in that Country does not justify the murder
      of a hundred of thousand human beings – even on his terms ..

      Blair couldn’t pull the wool over the 2 million people
      who marched against it but apparently Putin managed to do just that
      in the case of Ukraine.

      Ukraine are fighting back for they want their independence just as they did
      in 1917 when an earlier Iran/Russian war commenced (30years before NATO
      was even thought of ..). This happened at the same time as Ireland
      commenced their fight for Independence from the UK. and there were many
      fights for independence by countries – both before and after in Europe, Africa,
      and both Americas ..

      The reason why peace is going to be difficult .. because Russia
      is not trusted – the UN has been hobbled because both Russia and
      the US have chosen to do so and there is no other organisation able
      to properly enforce a settlement. The Minsk agreement which followed
      the 2014 insurgence was never properly implemented. The fear is that
      after a temporary stop Imperialist Russia/Putin will start again –
      just as in Chechnya with Yeltsin starting the first War and Putin the second ..

      1. Holby, I don’t like Putin, but it isn’t as simple, as you would like it to be. Ukraine as a state is a creation of late 20C. Parts of western Ukraine are Polish speaking and until the end of the 2nd WW were part of Poland.
        Until the 17C the East and South of what is Ukraine today was part of the Ottoman Empire until Russia defeated the Ottomans and claimed the territory as Russian. Many of the people in the Donetsk and Luhanks consider themselves Russians or Tartars rather than Ukrainians.
        This whole thing started when in 2014 the Russian population in the East complained against what they regarded as war against them from their government. Leading Russia to hold a referendum in the Crimea peninsula in which by a large majority the population wanted to join Russia.
        Russia wanted to held referendums in the Donetsk and Luhands too. The Minks Agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine and Russia withdrew from the Donetsk.
        The problem is that Ukraine hasn’t fulfil the its obligations under the Minks Agreement and the Russian population in the Donetsk asked for Russian’s intervention.
        To make it easier to understand: Thatcher went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Island as it consider its duty to defend the British speaking inhabitants and its interest in the territory.
        The UK is thousands of miles away from the Falkland Islands but still intervened. Why it is so difficult to understand that Russian will intervene to protect:
        – Its interest in no having NATO or the EU on its borders
        -defend the Russian speaking majority living in these territories
        Arming Ukraine is only going to prolong the war and kill more and more people on both sides. The sensible thing to do is to persuade the Ukraine’s goverment of the need to negotiate with Russia and fulfil its obligations under the Minks Agreement.

      2. Reply to Maria V
        In response to your comment about Thatcher in my opinion protecting British interests/ territory was not the reason for the Falklands war. It was Thatchers self interest all the way ‘
        She was on her way out as most people had become totally disillusioned with her politics and her behaviour. The Falklands gave her the chance to successfully reinvent herself as a female Churchill and cement her position as head of the Tory party and head of government.She succeeded in doing so.
        I think Blair saw this and decided to try the same tactic with Iraq. He failed and his actions led directly and indirecrly to hundreds of thousands of deaths( some estimates are up to a million)
        He and Thatcher are two of a kind and I find it hard to decide which one I hold in most contempt.

  7. It’s plainly obvious this is bullying and I didn’t think the Labour Party approved of bullying. Eventually members of the party will consist of right wing Labour MPs and their cohorts.

  8. Starmer is intentionally de-naturing Labour. The current membership don’t seem to mind too much…

    Denatured alcohol will kill you. Denatured protein will starve you. Denatured Labour will say “show me your papers” and increase the military budget from £8-11 billion in the next two years, and commit extra extra funds by 2030 to raise spending on the armed forces to 3 percent of GDP a year.

    De-naturing Labour!

  9. We’re going to go to war. The Russians won’t fold and anyway, China’s the prize. Just need them russian resources and cannon fodder.

    It’s either this or financial collapse. Think they’re gonna told and take that instead of doubling down? Nobody is going to go wobbly as Maggie once put it. many rats will show their true colours over the coming months.

    Seen the “recruitment” videos from Ukraine yet?

    1. “We’re going to go to war. ”
      Stoltenberg and many others have already said the NATO is at war with Russia.
      Surely Stoltenberg must have been in on the Nordstream sabotage?

      1. There is no must have been. He was fully complicit.

        Boris wants the job next…

        Find myself wondering how we will fair if the Russians return the favour at some point.

  10. “Most disturbing is a letter doing the rounds calling for increased defence expenditure and more weapons for Ukraine. ”
    Yes. It is disturbing, but wholly unsurprising.
    Not that it matters one iota.
    The West just does not have the industrial capacity to produce weaponry at the rate that the Ukrainians are using up artillery rounds and having their heavy equipment destroyed.
    It’s all just posturing, though some of them really seem to believe their own spin.
    Maybe some of them have shares in the arms companies.

    1. If retired US Colonel Douglas McGregor’s right and Russia’s 700,000 troops centred on Ukraine are ‘good to go’ and simply waiting for orders to mobilise and win, then the neocon’s Narrative for the last year (which, for some reason GBNews insists on calling ‘the ‘Ruling Class’s’) will be clearly seen as crassly false and deliberately misleading (just like a certain other ‘Narrative’ we had to endure recently). But until the lied-to get angry with their politicians, the Establishment they serve, and the MSM which misinforms for themm, it won’t make a gram of difference. (facts don’t matter if you own TheScience™️)

      Re Starmer’s mandatory ‘vaccination’, his “show me your papers” authoritarianism and his blind loyalty to NATO’s war, none of it will even need to be acknowledged by him as wrong. He’s a “wrong side of history” guy who, heaven help us, will certainly get his grubby hands on the UK state’s levers of power.

      btw, thanks for the link.

      1. NATO the ‘defensive’ alliance. is steadily marching eastwards, towards world peace. How many military bases does USA need? Fighting for Peace is like F.cking for Chastity.

      2. Incidentally, it’ll be interesting to see if anyone complains to Ofcom about this rude and unexpected injection of realism into their fantasy world. I think Oliver is bravely taking on Mark Steyn’s mantel as chief provocateur on the channel, baiting the blue tick brigade who run to Ofcom at the drop of a hat to save them from having to think for themselves. (Steyn had 2 Ofcom complaints hanging over him when he had 2 successive heart attacks before Christmas. When he returned after convalescing, he was handed a new contract, making him personally liable for any Ofcom fines. Not surprisingly, he walked).

      3. qwertboi
        The Ukrainians will have lost a generation of men and boys, there will be a price to pay for those responsible

    2. The only mention of “the ruling class” I recall hearing was from MacGregor. If Neil Oliver used it too, it certainly isn’t terminology approved by GB News!

    3. When do you expect Rupert Murdoch (well known purveyor of ‘Truth’ & chum of Starmer) to pull/cancel the Neil Oliver Show or perhaps Neil will be protected by its never ending claim that the TV Channel ethos is based on ‘Freedom of Speech’?

      1. Murdoch owns Talk TV, not GB News, so he doesn’t have any influence over it

  11. This is a good one.
    The FT reports, inter alia, that:
    “Western officials now believe that the [Chinese] balloon may have drifted off its intended course.”
    They recently fished some of the debris out of the sea. It seems that they are acknowledging that it was, in fact, a weather balloon after all.

    1. It’s covered up an environmental disaster comparable with Chernobyl.

      Where’s Greta and her chums with this huge assault on nature? Probably the same place the human rights folks were when we were locked up…

  12. Then we have an article in Politico headlined “It’s the end of the world as we know it — and Munich feels nervous.” – the Munich (so-called) Security Conference.
    The first paragraph says “MUNICH — Cut through the haze of hoary proclamations emanating from the main stage of the Munich Security Conference about Western solidarity and common purpose this weekend, and one can’t help but notice more than a hint of foreboding just beneath the surface.”
    When will they learn that diplomacy means give and take?
    Or do they think that this means they should take and the rest of the world should give?

  13. In line with Starmer’s anti-democratic, anti-Human Rights policy and denial of natural justice in Labour Party where members are banned for breaching rules that didn’t exist when they were breached.
    If they ban STW they’d have to get rid of several 1000 paying members ( and maybe some MPs) which they may consider a price worth paying to have an excuse to expel Corbyn .
    But would the Right Wing Oxymoronic Moderate extremists in control of the Labour Party do something as stupid as proscribing Momentum?
    Momentum claimed about 30,000 members at one time many of whom are still in Labour Party.. They would have to be expelled along with any other members that worked with them at any time. Momentum drummed up 1000s of canvassers at last two GEs all of whom worked with people who are still in Party. This could mean expelling 100,000 or more paying members?

    1. Iamcrawford, Labour isn’t going to expel everyone for once it cannot afford it, It would expel only those Labour’s see as “irritants”.
      Pamela Fitzpatrick was expelled as a way of stopping her for taking her position on Labour National Women Committee. Rheian Davis was suspended only after winning her seat on the NCC. Naomi Wimbourne Idrissi was only expelled after she won a position on the NEC.
      What Starmer is doing is saying without works if you dare to stand for a position within the party, we will find something against you and expel you.
      I have said before, I am not going to be surprised if at the last possible moment as soon as the Tories announce the date for a General Election that Starmer is going to withdraw the whip from every single member of the SCG.
      I hope that they have been smart and on the quiet collect funds to mount an independent campaign and quickly create a new political party and retain their seats.

    1. Do we believe Sadiq? Somehow I don’t, I am not going to be surprised if he was to forget everything about it the moment he is re-elected.

      1. Snarf, Ho, ho, ho. He might get re-elected. I left the great nowhere in 1995. I wouldn’t go back not even for a shit. Vote away Londoners, home of the Guardian, Beeb, and militant identarianism. I still support the Lions though. Khan, hehe, hehe. Good luck down there.

  14. “Asked by journalists last week whether he would proscribe – outlaw – Momentum, Keir Starmer responded equivocally:”

    ‘That one is not for me’.

    I would imagine that those ‘journalists’ had probably been requested by Starmer’s aides to ask that question.
    As for the Starmer response, well he does like to claim that decisions are made by other people.

    Our goal should be to bring him down. We have had enough warnings about what a Starmer-led Labour government would look like.

  15. This is how hypocritical Labour are: Controversial BBC Chairman, Tory supporter and donor, friend of Boris Johnson, Richard Sharp, has according to the guardian and Labour, seriously undermined the corporation’s perceived independence and impartiality.

    Starmer recently made a speech and boasted how Equalities and Human Rights Commission(EHRC) has ended monitoring of the party. But at the time of initiating the investigation into the party(May 2019), they were Chaired by a Tory supporter and donor:

    David Isaac

    ‘When the City lawyer Isaac was appointed to chair the EHRC in 2016, two parliamentary committees wrote to Nicky Morgan, the then minister for women and equalities, to warn there could be a conflict of interest because his legal firm Pinsent Masons carried out “significant work for the government”.

    Harriet Harman, the chair of parliament’s joint committee on human rights, said there was “obviously a conflict of interest” Isaac, an equity partner in Pinsent Masons with an annual income of £500,000 a year, told MPs he would not be carrying out any work for government clients during his chairmanship.’

    If having a Tory supporter and donor, risks undermining the BBC, why not the EHRC?

    1. Also, lest we forget:

      “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) first asked the EHRC to investigate the Conservative Party in May 2019. It received no reply and made a second request in November 2019 and again received no reply. In March 2020, the MCB submitted a dossier including 300 supposed cases of prejudiced or discriminatory language against Muslims within the Conservative Party. On 12 May, the EHRC announced that it would not be investigating the Conservative Party for racism, pending its monitoring of the party’s own internal review.”

      1. Tony

        Isaac is also a prominent member of the Jewish community. He was heavily involved in ‘Bright Blue.’

        Bright Blue : an independent think tank and pressure group advocating for liberal conservative ideas and policies, based in the United Kingdom.

        Keeping the religious theme, it all smells to high heaven.

      2. Crimes against Natural Justice and our Democracy
        What should be the punishment for that

  16. HFW – In a comment, above, you say “Putin has instigated an insane war on Ukraine”
    and “…. and in Putins a land grab”.
    Re: “instigated”
    I assume that you have not read the Rand Corporation strategy document of 2019, commissioned by the US government, which advocated a strategy of drawing Russia into a war in Ukraine and destabilising Russia with sanctions. It’s called “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia”. If you haven’t read it, it’s attached here.
    If you recall, Ukraine, Donetsk and Lugansk signed the first Minsk Agreement which was “guaranteed” by France, Germany and Russia – Ukraine failed to implement the agreement.
    If you recall, a second Minsk agreement was signed between the parties, again “guaranteed” by France, Germany and Russia. The UN passed a resolution demanding that Ukraine implement the agreement. Again, Ukraine failed to implement the agreement.
    If you recall the coup of 2014 which led to the civil war in Ukraine resulted in around 4 million refugees fleeing the conflict, into Russia, because they were Russian speakers and were afraid for their lives.
    If you recall, independent western estimates of the effects of the civil war set the number of civilians killed by Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk city from 2014 to 2022 at around 14,000.
    If you recall the agreement reached in Istanbul in March 2022 between Ukraine and Russia, which Erdogan had helped negotiate and which led to Russian troops leaving sections of northern Ukraine, was repudiated a few days later by Zelensky.
    So let’s have a reasoned assessment of who instigated the conflict, but not before reading the Rand Corporation document.
    Re: “land grab”
    Russia is an enormous country with rather a lot of land. What Russia could do with isn’t more land, it’s more people. In fact, in parts of the country people are being offered house and land for one ruble to try to encourage repopulation of those areas including by means of immigration.

    1. Goldbach, thanks for the link – fascinating and considered analysis. What it does not do, however, is advocate provoking Russia into a conflict in Ukraine -yes, one of many options considered is

      Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.

      Yet this is not included in the conclusion of the most credible options, so ‘advocating’ is at best a stretch. The global powers must surely all be ‘war gaming’ such scenarios and again thanks for highlighting such thinking from the US that was in plain sight.
      It’s also worth reading the belated coda Rand added to the article

    2. The ukinazis were surrounded and about to be eviscerated thus the abject Minsk agreements. Enter Western engineers, trainers and advisors. The build up started. Germany, France, US the cowboys all readied themselves for war. Listen to bloody Merkel.

  17. Can we please stop with the silly Starmer as Stalin comparisons please. Stalin was an actual socialist who did his damnedest to improve the lot of ordinary people in the Soviet Union. The CIA in a recently declassified report admitted that he was not a dictator, that the USSR was ruled by its government as a whole. Stalin is known to have tried to retire at least 4 times, when disagreements with his Central Committee made him go, basically, “Look, if you don’t want me, I’ll go retire to my dacha in the countryside, give up politics and not bother you any more”, to which the Russians replied “No, we need you, please stay”. NOTHING could be more different from the weaselly Starmer who lied to get into the job as Labour leader, and now can’t be gotten rid of despite nobody wanting him.

    1. Agreed.

      That moustache and uniform flatter this bully and wimp.

      Starmer is a creepy establishment toady, a Uriah Heep figure who goes all gooey around power: be it the company of army top brass, intel community; or senior bankers and the Davos crowd. A servile bootlicker.

      He’s only attacking the left like some bully because it results in zero negative publicity. If we had an independent BBC and press, who were pulling him and cronies up on it. These purges would stop immediately.

      Mr Streakier – an anagram of Keir Starmer seems more apt. and Rachel Severe [cuts] – anagram of Reeves.

    2. Yes Stalin was dependent on the Party machine for being
      able to rule – but nevertheless this was the very small group of people
      who survived the many blood baths involving their Late colleagues.
      I guess that in that context – its the survival of the fittest – where
      to lose is to die.

      A friend said “Putin is worse than Stalin- for the latter could be voted out
      whereas Putin is there for life.”

      Stalin also had ideals – but these did not secure those he persecuted a
      better life. It was a group of women who started the Russian Revolution
      as a protest against poverty and it is a pity they were elbowed out by thugs

      In a TV program about Putin – a member of his Govt approached him and
      said as if it had just occurred to him “You’ve got no ideals now have you?”
      and Putin just gave him a blank stare.

      There are many degrees of badness in leadership and Starmer is not the worst
      He evidently sees opposition as a threat to him for he is politically inept and
      not very bright.

  18. He won’t even allow Labour shadow ministers MPs to stand on picket lines .

    Could this fact be why : MPs’ pay has increased by 28% since 2010.

  19. No I haven’t read the Rand Corporation document of 2019 –
    however I have read the history of the early 20th Century where
    during and after WW1 several Empires fell – including the
    Russian Empire when Ukraine fought for I independence in
    two wars between 1917 and 1922 during which Ukraine
    achieved independence for around 2 years .. The borders of
    countries in Africa were mostly drawn by imperialists yet they
    demanded independence from their Occupiers .. and as such
    Ukraine also wanted independence. The Soviets hardly endeared
    themselves to the Ukraine effectively murdering millions
    during the man-made famine.

    If we are talking of borders – Ukraine (as it is now) is composed
    partly of a slice of what was a part of Poland which Stalin had
    acquired during his agreement with Hitler when Russian troops
    invaded Eastern Poland occupying half of the country with the Nazis
    occupying the other. At the end of WW2 Stalin managed to hold onto
    a slice of this.

    After the USSR broke up in around 1991 Russia (among others)
    signed a document guaranteeing the borders of Ukraine providing they
    gave up their nuclear arsenal. Putin (aiming others) bitterly regretted
    the break-up of the Soviet Union and has engaged in
    wars with both Chechnya and Ukraine, Corbyn protested about
    the deaths in Chechnya in the early 2000s which resulted in the razing of
    countries to rubble just as Ukraine is now. While this was happening
    Blair and his cronies was schmoozing with Putin

    I absolutely disagree with the notion that there was a “coup” in 2014 –
    they asserted their right of protest – firstly – because of the insistence of their
    President on maintaining closer ties with Russia as opposed to
    finalizing an agreement with the EU . This was in spite of
    the EU agreement having been overwhelmingly approved by
    their Parliament and the protesters wanted the President impeached.
    The protests were also in response to the
    corruption in the country and the belief that association with the EU
    would aid their ridding of their country of this.

    The annexing of parts of the Ukraine and Crimea was a totally illegal act
    and there should have been more sanctions by (in particular) the UK.
    Instead they let the corrupt illegally gained money of Oligarchs in Russia
    and Ukraine be laundered through the London Market while the UK moneyed
    Establishment consorted with these same Oligarchs on
    their yachts. So where was NATO then and why were they not stopping
    the enrichment of Putin and his cronies?

    The country is not a toy to be fought over by “The West” and “Russia” –
    but a set of individuals who have their own ideas and a life to lead. Their
    has been much loss of life in Ukraine and of Russian soldiers. A year ago
    Ukraine was struggling to overcome many problems – among them a continuing
    war in which there were war crimes from both sides – as well as
    continuing corruption. Lies were told by Russia for there were contributions
    to culture from Russian speakers – including author Andrey Kurkov
    He speculated that ratter than crush Ukrainian culture the war would invigorate it –
    and so it has happened ..

    Zelenski was struggling too – – he was elected because
    of suspicion about conventional politicians and he has succeeded in
    implementing only a few of his promises of a clean-up of political life.
    (And yes he does own some off-shore companies.)
    The ideas from some that he was imposed by reason of a plot
    by the West was ludicrous – in fact he had Russian connections and
    largely spoke Russian, opposing a ban on Russian artists in 2014.
    The War has also had the opposite effect of what Putin intended – rather than
    disrupt relations between Ukraine and the West – it has strengthened them as it
    it has also strengthened NATO. I hate this (possibly seeming) assumption
    that people are either for NATO or for Putin .. which to me is patronising. It
    reminds me of the equally patronising assumption from a presenter of a TV program\
    about the Cambridge spies – that in the 1930s people supported either Hitler
    or Stalin ..

    So what has the War achieved for Russia – nothing .. They invaded a non NATO
    Country because they feared for their security .. and they invigorate NATO instead.
    I did not approve of the increase of NATO bases in Eastern Europe but
    now they appear to have been justified!!

    They lied about Ukraine being full of Nazis – while there are some there also
    also some in Russia – for what else is the “Wagner” group but a Right Wing Militia –
    just like those of the US. Zelensky and his Prime Minister are both Jewish, with
    Zelensky a descendent of Holocaust victims. Meanwhile Millions have had
    their homes destroyed and the infrastructure of Ukraine damaged .. and there
    are many thousands of dead – civilian men. women and children included
    well as military. There is an exodus from Russia of those unwilling to fight in
    what they see as “this stupid war” ..

    1. HFM – Please take just a little time to read the Rand Corporation document (the link is there), and look at the date.

    2. HFM, the man made famine, wasn’t made by the Soviets but rather by Ukrainian farmers choosing to destroy their crops rather than to sell them at affordable prices to the urban centres.
      You are forgetting that the Soviet Union suffered famine too.
      You appear to forget too, that the many Ukrainians sided with Nazi Germany and happily participated in the murdering of Jews.
      I hear from a friend with grand kids attending school in North London that a Ukrainian mother requested for her child not to seat next to black children and to be moved to a class with only white children.
      Zelinski government is banning trade unions and had passed laws to sell Ukraine agricultural land to foreign agricultural investments. That is what this war is about.
      Meanwhile, Palestinians are killed in their own land by a foreign invader (Israel) and somehow you don’t see the government or the Labour Party concerned at all.
      What is it that Ukraine has to be defended? When we aren’t prepare to defend the Palestinians? Please think about it.

      1. Maria – Unfortunately every society has its share of ill informed and ignorant racists but I do remember that at the start of Putin’s invasion that there were a large number of students and others from the African continent who were either happily studying or had chosen to settle in Ukraine.

    3. Where, where are these millions fleeing to? Israel? They were going there anyway. Do you think that the wisdom lies in the west? It doesn’t. The world changed last February and the anglo rules based order will be buried at last. Then we can trade as a Brexit nation with the world.

    4. The Ukis want people to come to their lovely country. Preferably some of those Ukranians polluting our country. Their white pride shit is a bit tiresome when we all know that had they the will their own army would embrace them tenderly.

  20. I absolutely disagree with the notion that there was a “coup” in 2014 – they asserted their right of protest…also in response to the corruption in the country…

    Although I don’t particularly follow political events past or present in Ukraine this is what Oliver Bullough writes on that particular point:

    Yanukovich rulked Ukraine…from 2010 to 2014, during which time he enriched himself and bankrupted his country. Finally, Ukrainians got fed up, and thousands protested…until he fled…Everyone had known he was a criminal, but they had never seen the extent of his haul…He had more money then he ever needed, more treasures than he had room for…[He] had built his palace while living off a state salary…

    Moneyland:Why Thieves & Crooks Now Rule the World & How to Take it Back; Profile Books, London; p.4

    1. You may “disagree with the notion that there was a “coup” in 2014 ” but, if you accept the definition of a coup as an unconstitutional transfer of power, then it was a coup. A coup is not necessarily a military coup, although there were armed elements involved in 2014.
      Elections were scheduled for a matter of weeks after the unconstitutional transfer of power, and Yanukovich could/would have been voted out at that time. Don’t forget the recording of Victoria Nuland talking to the, then, US ambassador in Kiev that was circulating a week or so before the coup, where they were talking about what money was needed to facilitate the coup and who should be made president.

      As for Oliver Bullough, he is entitled to his opinion but opinion is not necessarily fact. I’m sure that Yanukovich was corrupt, but he was not the only such president of Ukraine. Ukraine has been ranked in the bottom two most corrupt countries in Europe ever since it ceased to be in the Confederation of Independent States (i.e. the post Warsaw Pact name of the former Soviet Union).
      Bullough himself is a writer who has, inter alia, written for the “Institute for War and Peace Reporting”. It’s one of those organisations that are not too transparent. It states that its funding comes from “private foundations, individual donors and government agencies.” Sounds like one of those CIA cut-outs to me.

      1. Yes Ukrainian was extremely corrupt and I can well b believe it beat the rest – but so is Russia where in both cases the pointy-elbowed got hold of the Countries resources as soon as they became independent.

        According to a scholarly article I read in the case of Ukraine it was the Party officials who took advantage of the change of system to steal the resources.

        In both cases the money was laundered through the London money markets.

        In 2014 the Parliament wanted to be closer to the EU while the President did
        not so it was him who behaved undemocratically. They decided to impeach him –
        all according to the law – just as they did with Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in the US.
        IN fact one attempt at impeachment of Trump came AFTER he left office. However
        the Ukrainian President ran off to Russia before they did this .. The whole thing
        was according to the Law – just as in this Country MPs got rid of Liz Truss after
        her disastrous – and arrogant – behaviour.

      2. “A coup is not necessarily a military coup…”

        A military coup does not necessarily mean that the military actually takes over the government of the country.

        In 1974, the CIA and the Pentagon finally achieved their goal of ousting President Nixon.
        The CIA had originally planned to assassinate him but that failed when the assassin, Edwin Kaiser, backed out. Whether General Alexander Haig knew of the CIA’s plans is not known.

        Haig worked hard to destroy Nixon’s presidency and oust him from office. Nixon was then replaced by autopsy falsifier Gerald Ford.

    2. ‘rulked'(?!)…my bad…’ruled’. And ‘more money than’…not ‘then’.

    3. Though I haven’t read it myself, I am told that a recent article in the FT says that the countries of the “global south” who had been invited to the Munich Security Conference have been giving the “West” a flea in the ear over the Ukraine war.

      1. Well China has been very lavish with its funding of the “Global South” –
        Countries many whom are very poor so I suggest that that might have influenced
        their opinions ..They do not have the luxury of judgement and certainly
        no money to support anything ..

      2. I would say substantial rather than lavish.
        The big differences between the funding provided by China and that provided by the West are twofold.
        Firstly, western funding is usually conditional on “economic reform”, in other words, on privatisation of state assets, whereas Chinese funding doesn’t come with those strings.
        Secondly, infrastructure programmes funded by the West normally concentrate on transport structures designed to move raw materials etc. to the coast for export, whereas Chinese infrastructure support often includes links within countries and between neighbouring countries.
        Clearly, China will benefit from such programmes, but the African countries will benefit too. Western programmes are usually designed for to exploit the resources for the sole benefit of western companies.
        My suggestion regarding the reaction of countries like Brazil, Namibia, etc. who have spoken out is that they have started to gain the confidence to articulate long-held grievances against the West, grievances that are well-justified. Our relative wealth has been bought at the expense of their relative poverty.

      3. Goldbach, and the rest. S.A are having naval exercises with Russia and China. Mali are sending their F.M to Moscow. Trade is growing everywhere cue bombast and threat. I fear for the poor folk of the Soloman Islands.

  21. Tim White20/02/2023 AT 9:18 PM
    Of course, you are correct.
    Rand doesn’t advocate, it “games” scenarios.
    Unlike when we are speaking, when writing I find it easier to let something slip through like this.
    To be clear, it seems to me that the neocons were very taken by this particular scenario that was gamed by Rand, and became so obsessed with it that they are now unable to see, or at least to acknowledge, that it is a miserable failure, and so they keep on doubling down, as they say in the US.
    Thanks for the link. It was an amusing read, a bit of an angry rant to be honest. Substitute “US” for “Russia” and we would have an article that was more to the point.

  22. Back to Starmer – I agree that it would be a good idea to dispense with the Starmer/Stalin cartoon.
    It gives him more gravitas than he deserves to have. Just a straightforward depiction provides a better measure of the man. Any middle-aged man who sports a Tintin hairstyle makes himself look like a buffoon ………. and, of course, Tintin was not averse to racial stereotyping either.

  23. In this article article referring to the “Annexation of Crimea” In 2014, the West called Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its annexation to Russia an annexation and began an aggressive anti-Russian policy. But was it annexation from a legal point of view? The author of the article, Wolfgang Bittner, proves that there is not, referring, among other things, to the lawyer and legal philosopher Reinhard Merkel. It was not Russia that violated international law, but Ukraine.

    1. You have to consult the ruling of the International Court of Justice regarding Kosovo.
      When the KLA started its campaign to secede from Yugoslavia (as it was still called) the matter was taken to the ICJ by Yugoslavia (Serbia). They argued that, in international law, the right to secure borders meant that Kosove did not have the right to secede. The Kosovan argument was that, in international law, the right to self-determination meant that Kosovo did have the right to secede The ICJ agreed that the two were contradictory and they would need to rule on which had precedence. They ruled that self-determination was more important than secure borders.
      N.B. The administration of Kosovo declared independence without going to a referendum but the ICJ ruled that, since they were a regional government, they could be said to be expressing the will of the people of Kosovo.
      Applying the, now, established principle to Ukraine would mean that Crimea had the right to secede and ask to join Russia (even if they hadn’t bothered with a referendum), and that Lugansk and Donetsk had the right to declare independence ……. and later to apply to join Russia.
      I will now read the article to see what Wolfgang Bittner says.

  24. As an aside, I have had the dubious pleasure of reading the Beeb’s live reporting of Vladimir Putin’s “State of the Uniion” speech earlier this morning. I wish that I could say that it was unbelievable but, to be honest, none of it surprised me.
    It was full of opinions claiming to be fact – as when the “journalist” seemed to think he was a mind reader, saying that “the Russian thought ..” etc.
    It also had its fair share of straight falsehoods – as when it talked about “the Russians” conscripting people. [Reservists are not conscripts. They are people who have served at least one 3 year term as professional soldiers and who have signed up, for a small income, to be available for call-up should they be needed. This was a model that Russia adopted after Vladimir Putin became president and it was copied from the US National Guard system.]
    The Beeb should come with the warning “funded by the government of the UK”.

  25. Some comments above regard the coup as lawful including the Foreign Secretary.
    I sent an e-mail to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 13th March 2014 and a follow up one on 7th April 2014, asking the Foreign Secretary to correct a misleading statement he made to the House of the new regime in Ukraine. He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovych from power on 22 February 2014 in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution and that therefore “it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities. It is simply untrue that the Rada followed the procedure laid down in the Ukrainian constitution to impeach and remove a president from power.
    Article 108 of the Ukraine constitution has four circumstances whereby a President can be replaced, the powers of the President of Ukraine terminate prior to the expiration of term in cases of:
    1) resignation;
    2) inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
    3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
    4) death.
    The procedure, laid down in Article 111 of the constitution, is not unlike that required for the impeachment and removal from power of a US president, which could take months.
    Thus, Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president’s guilt for the Rada to consider.
    Prior to a final vote to remove a president from power, it requires
    (a) The Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
    (b) The Supreme Court of Ukraine must certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment.
    The Rada didn’t follow this procedure at all. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved. On 22 February 2014, the Rada simply passed a bill removing President Yanukovych from office.
    Furthermore, the bill wasn’t even supported by three quarters of the members of the Rada, as required by Article 111 for the removal of a president from office – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).
    Justifying UK support for the new regime in Kiev in the House of Commons on 4 March 2014, the Foreign Secretary said:
    “Former President Yanukovych left his post and then left the country, and the decisions on replacing him with an acting President were made by the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, by the very large majorities required under the constitution, including with the support of members of former President Yanukovych’s party, the Party of Regions, so it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities.”
    The Ukrainian President had not resigned, he is still the legitimate President of Ukraine, therefore the Foreign Secretary’s statement was a calculated deception of the House of Commons, designed to give the impression that the procedure prescribed in the Ukrainian constitution for the removal of a president from office had been followed, when it hadn’t.
    Because this statement was fundamentally wrong can I be assured that the Foreign Secretary will tell the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity, and through them the British people, that the statement he made on 4th March 2014, was false.
    I await your response
    Regards Harry Law.

    1. Although the process Harry describes here relates to the specific instance of the Constitution* of Ukraine which existed at that time it is nevertheless generically applicable to the way in which the post-modern and post-structuralist mindset works and operates.

      We see this same process and approach of picking and choosing what principles and values to suit convenience everywhere.

      From the total absence of any recognisable consistent due process in the Labour Party, in Government administration, and everyday approaches of Zone A (The minority billion ‘represented’ by Western elites – what Andrei Raevsky (The Saker) describes as ‘incompetent and absolutist freaks) attempting to impose by force a permanent ‘we make the rules you obey the orders’ rules based (sic) paradigm.

      Indeed, to quote from another blog site (Steel City Scribbler) “The postmodern emphasis on ‘narrative’; and rejection as old fashioned, quaint and uncool all talk of an external reality — independent of our thought processes but in principle accessible by empirical methods — has served, as some prescient souls warned decades ago that it would, thoroughly reactionary ends. If there’s no knowable reality, then all manner of key principles are eroded — such as the distinction between being accused of something, and being found guilty of it!”

      Which is why what is labelled ‘woke’ follows the same approach – simply because both originate from the same reactionary base championed by people like Ayan Rand and Thacher.

      Succinctly enc encapsulated in this observation from a chap by the name of Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh:

      “Thus arises an intriguing ‘binary’ relationship between extreme individualistic subjectivism and extreme state authoritarianism. Assertion of non-negotiable pseudo-sacrosanct narcissistic power is common to both. Objective law as irreducible sphere of reality is subverted by arbitrary personalism. Might determines right. Autocracy of self-ID is mirrored by autocracy on high.”

      *On the matter of Constitutions here’s a relevant contribution from Scottish Independence blogger Robin MaCalpine on another example of such stitch up’s:

      “I’ve been contacted by a lawyer who has been checking the SNP constitution this morning. And here’s the problem – in an earlier round of abandoning SNP democracy the constitution was amended to enable the NEC to rewrite the constitution at will. It is hard to tell from the current mess of constitution what is actually legal or not – but then it doesn’t make much difference because the NEC can just change it until it says what they want it to say. That may mean that legal routes (such as an interdict) will fail, making it even more important there is a mass outcry. And to my many friends in the SNP, understand this – if the NEC of an organisation can rewrite the constitution at will, you don’t have a constitution, you become an entity wholly governed by your NEC. In that world nothing is ever against the rules unless the NEC wants it to be against the rules. It turns out that even I forgot how bad SNP ‘democracy’ had become.”

      Different example, same playbook. Whether it’s Scotland, the UK, Ukraine, wokeism whatever. Do as we say not as we do.

      1. Dave – So what you are really saying is that the set-up is very similar to that of a representative democracy.

      2. Last time I looked representative democracy operated on the basis of rules – whether legal or organisational – values and principles which are applied consistently rather than on the basis of what suited those with power.

        Of course, that was in the pre-postmodernist/poststructuralist days before certain people – like yourself for example – conveniently did away with the concept of structure so you didn’t have deal with reality.

        Care to explain;

        1. How rewriting a constitution by a select few with no democratic input or process to suit their convenience falls under the criteria of ‘representative democracy’?

        2. How picking and choosing what rules and laws apply and when – including applying them retrospectively – with no attempt at applying, and adopting normal standard due process procedures of innocent until proven guilty and no effective right to a defence via Kangaroo judgements which administer summary and pre-determined judgement to suit (as per the Labour Party) falls into the framework of ‘representative democracy?

        Go on. Instead of running away like the pathetic and abject coward you have consistently proven to be (I certainly would not have wanted someone like you alongside me when I was serving) to avoid answering the question why not break the habit of lifetime and actually answer a straight question instead?

        What’s it going to be this time? Projection? Bluster? Re-framing? Bullshit? Sticking a blanket over your head?

      3. Dave – But weren’t the Union’s Executive voted into office by the Union’s membership.

  26. A further aside – re: Corruption
    As I recall, Ukraine was rated the most corrupt country in Europe right through until 2011 or 2012, when Yanukovich was president, when it was rated the second worst. It is not clear whether this was because Ukraine had become a little less corrupt under Yanukovich or whether Moldova had become more corrupt and taken the crown.
    As for Russia, British businessmen operating in Russia used to tell of the rampant corruption under Yeltsin, with officials always needing bungs to enable businesses to operate …… or almost always. I recall an interview with two such businessmen saying that there was one official who was straight, whom they would always hope would be on their case. His name was Vladimir Putin. I’m sure that there is lots of corruption there still (here too, mind you) but you have to admit that a lot of the oligarchs created during the Yeltsin years shipped out to London, Tel Aviv and Spain soon after Putin became president.

    1. goldbach – Is there a reason why you neglected to mention it is Russia that is the most corrupt regime in Europe.
      Unlike Russia, Ukraine is making improvements and doing what it can to address corruption. Below are their respective positions in the international corruptions index
      2020-2022 116 137
      2010-2019 126 137
      2000-2009 146 146
      Check it out for yourself

  27. I will go and have a coffee after this one.
    Watch out for a “popular uprising” in the Solomon Islands. The US seems to be stirring it as part of their anti-China strategy.

  28. Good discussion – even if we disagree ..

    An unrelated question – I have read JVLs piece which contains
    two clips from “Not the Andrew Marr Show” where Louise Ellman was
    mentioned briefly. ****

    She had condemned Jeremy Corbyn for chairing a meeting in the Hoc
    in (I think) 2010 in which a Holocaust Surviver spoke and was barracked
    by some in the Zionist Society(?) It turned out that she had attended that
    meeting. Further – I recall that she had written about it in “Tribune” condemning
    the barracking however I cannot find evidence about the “Tribune” article –
    does anyone have any?

    **** The JVL piece is recommended !

    1. Further investigations reveal that it was not Louise Ellman
      who wrote the article in Tribune but someone else who
      had observed her there –

      so sorry ..

      However my further investigations reveal that there was
      a NewsNight interview in 2018 by Emily Maitlis of Ellman
      about the event whee nowhere is its mentioned that
      the speaker who was barracked was a Holocaust survivor
      (See previous 2018 article by Skwawkie where all this
      is discussed ..)

      Oh and it is the Zionist FEDERATION
      so sorry again ..

  29. Starmer is a self-declared Zionist “without qualification” this means he supports the settlement enterprise, which is a grave war crime in breach of para 6 of article 49 of the Geneva conventions i.e. it is forbidden to transfer your own citizens into occupied territory, something the Israeli government have been doing every day for the past 50 years. I accuse K Starmer of endorsing the grave war crimes of the Israeli government, the man is a dispicable human being who has no right to lead the LP, nor should he be a member.

    1. What you describe just got far more complicated to the point of the fabled ‘Gordian knot in a very real practical sense’ Harry.

      The logic of Angela Raynor’s recent statement in an interview published in the Times; which explicitly and publicly put meat on the bone of Labour Party policy on the issue to the point of wholeheartedly endorsing the GENERAL* principle of self-id – in whatever form it takes – as sufficient to be legally accepted in all cases and instances opens a veritable Pandora’s box.

      * And before proceeding further lets be clear here. The context might well have been about Gender transitioning but Raynor was very clear on the key point. ‘The words are the words’ – as we used to say at the old Union Conferences back in the 80’s and 90;s – and Raynor left no caveats, doubts or wriggle room that she was not limiting her responses to the very specific matter of Gender in terms of self-id. No one reading this piece in an honest way could doubt or claim that Raynor was not clearly and explicitly outlining a GENERIC position of endorsing any and every legal provision for anyone who self-identifies whatever form that identity takes.

      And people being people will inevitably take advantage to the point of kicking the arse out of the ground conceded.

      On the basis of both the common view of ‘what is sauce for the goose’ and the legal concept of precedence such a position as outlined by Raynor, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, would have no option – to cite just one very realistic potential example – but to support anyone and everyone in any legal claim to settle in the State of Israel on the grounds that their individual declaration of self-id represents sufficient de facto and de jure reason to satisfy the necessary criteria to do so.

      Indeed, it would be ‘interesting’ to see the current sorry excuse for a Labour Party tie itself up in knots trying to find a coherent, rational and logical position should, for example, a group of Palestinians mount a legal challenge to live in Israel as full Israeli citizens on the grounds that they self-identify as Jewish.

      Or, following the same train – given the context of the BTL discussion on this thread – if a majority of people in Crimea and the four breakaway republics declared themselves en mass as self-identifying as Russian.

      Of course, such examples are based on the assumption of consistency in the application of both principles and values on the part of that section of the populace who pick and choose to suit their convenience when it comes to principles, evidence and values. Some of whom very obviously frequent this site,

      Doubtless they would take the position of the Estonian PM at the recent Munich Security Conference;

      That they should be ‘re-educated’ – presumably via some kind of conversion therapy – not to be Russian at all. To be re-programmed to be good little Western woke consumer drones who never ever stray from the correct Official Narratives on pain of meeting the same fate as those Russian speakers who were, to take just one of many examples, murdered by those championed even by some on this site in the Odessa Trade Union building following the very blatant Western backed Ukraine coup of 2014.

  30. What’s happened to ‘pacifist’ John McDonnell?

    If it’s a ploy to save his seat, Starmer will still likely turn around and say ,thanks, but no thanks, and then dump him anyway, right before the GE.

    Next he’ll be telling us Gandhi was only a pacifist because he didn’t realise how much fun blowing shit up is.

  31. What’s happened to ‘pacifist’ John McDonnell? John McDonnell stabbed Jeremy Corbin in the back, Corbyn had to give him the cold shoulder for a long time.
    Gandhi was not a pacifist, he regarded cowards as not fit to live, as an example he said if some figure of authority [the police for instance] came to your house and started gratuitously slapping your daughter about and you failed to intervene on the grounds that to do so might mean them attacking you, then you would be a coward His philosophy was in order to have self respect you must hit back and hit back hard.

  32. Here are the real reasons for the Ukraine war. American General Jack Keane honestly admitted today on the Fox News channel: “For just $66 billion, we got Ukraine at war with Russia.”
    According to him, the United States has invested about $66 billion in the Kyiv regime since February of this year, which helped arm Ukraine and set up local society for war with Russia. The old warrior said that “investments in Ukraine today are very profitable, because for relatively little money in the interests of the United States, not Americans die in the war with Russia, but Ukrainians.”
    The confessions of the former chief of staff of the US Army are so cynical and frank that they knock the ground out of all pacifists and supporters of a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. The questions of who attacked first and why this is necessary disappear by themselves. You just need to carefully listen to the words of the general:
    “Some Republicans doubt the correctness of our spending today, including on Ukraine. But we have a budget of 6 trillion dollars, and, in fact, it is several hundred billion more. We invested crumbs in Ukraine – only 66 billion a year. This is 1.1% of the budget. And we get disproportionately large benefits.

    1. And yet they give a bona fide representative of a neo-nazi State whose only talent is playing the piano with his todger the red carpet treatment.

      To paraphrase the late Robin Williams; ‘Satire isn’t dead its alive and well in the Palace of Westminster.’

    1. Two Cheeks
      Which part of ‘It’s a Fiddle’ don’t you get
      Your polls are all to easily and cheaply bought, he who pays the Piper calls the tune
      Cheap and Nasty B team will NOT have a majority at next GE
      Peace and Prosperity party may well have balance of power

      1. Doug – “Peace and Prosperity party may well have balance of power”

        Have they registered as a political party yet, will he leave it too late?
        The last I heard Jeremy was still doing what he does best, prevaricating.

      2. Two Cheeks
        Old saying ‘Never give a Sucker a chance’
        Starmer won’t know what’s hit him, his fake it till you make it strategy will come crashing down around his ears

      3. Doug – So you keep saying, but what are you offering? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: